Starmer says Government will stay neutral on assisted dying

Sir Keir Starmer has insisted his Government will remain neutral on the assisted dying Bill amid fears over its progress in the House of Lords.

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which was voted through by MPs in the Commons in June, returned to the Lords on Friday for an eighth day of scrutiny in the upper chamber.

There has been speculation that the Bill could fall if peers do not get through the more than 1,000 amendments tabled.

Supporters of the Bill have repeatedly claimed those opposed to it are trying to talk out and filibuster the legislation.

Peers have voiced fears that a rarely used parliamentary law could be used to override their objections and push the legislation through.

The Prime Minister said he has no intention of changing tack and giving the Bill Government backing.

Speaking to the BBC from China, he said: “The Government has been neutral throughout the passage of this Bill and we are going to remain neutral.

“It is a matter for the House, but that has been our consistent position.”

Labour’s Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the proposer of the Bill in the Lords, suggested on Thursday that the Parliament Act could be invoked if time runs out in the upper chamber.

The legislation can be used for Bills that have been backed by the Commons in two successive sessions but have been rejected by peers.

It could then pass into law without Lords approval.

Backers of the Bill have said they are confident the Parliament Act would apply if the legislation was taken through the Commons again.

Conservative former minister Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon claimed this would be unprecedented, while unaffiliated peer and former editor of the Telegraph, Lord Charles Moore of Etchingham, said Lord Falconer’s comments had “prejudiced” discussions in the upper chamber.

Lord Ahmad said: “There has been, this week, regrettably much discussion about the use of the Parliament Act when it comes to the workings of this Bill.

“I have asked the chief whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) to clarify the fact that the private member’s bill we have in front of us, it would be unprecedented indeed if the Parliament Act was to be used in this regard.”

He told colleagues the last time the mechanism was used was for the Hunting Act 2004, which was brought by the Labour government of the time.

The assisted dying Bill is being put forward as a private member’s bill, and is not backed by the Government.

“We would be setting a very different precedent if this was to happen,” Lord Ahmad said.

Lord Moore referenced the interview given by Lord Falconer on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday, saying: “I do think that what he said there made it very difficult for the proceedings that are about to ensue, because he threatened… the Parliament Act.”

The peer added: “It seems to me that what (he) said on the Today programme prejudices what we are about to do in the next six or seven days.”

Non-affiliated peer Baroness Fox of Buckley said: “I’ve been told by members of the public: ‘Oh, I see that the Bill is going to invoke the Parliament Act, so what’s the point?’

“Some of them have been supportive of the Bill, some of them have been worried about the Bill but everyone seems to think that’s what’s happening.”

She added: “It’s quite demoralising to be in a situation where you’re told you’re effectively wasting your time.”

Speaking in the Lords on Friday, Lord Falconer said: “The last thing I want is for it to happen through the Parliament Act. What I want is for this House to do the job that it’s supposed to do, which is to do scrutiny then send it back to the Commons.”

Lord Kennedy said: “Decisions on the application of the (Parliament) Act are for the House of Commons.”

He later told peers: “In terms of a (private member’s Bill) being brought back by the Government, the Government has no intention of bringing this. This will remain a private member’s Bill.”

“At the end of the day, this House will decide what happens with this Bill. Nobody else will decide that. It’s up to this House.”

Claims of filibustering were raised again on Friday before the debate got under way. Top barrister Lord Pannick KC, a crossbench peer, said: “The reason why the Parliament Act is being discussed at the moment is because this is day eight of this committee and we are still on clause one.”

However, former environment secretary Lord Deben said the perceived slow rate of progress was because peers had received “no answers on any of the points that have been raised”.

“I am a little bit tired of this general campaign which suggests that this House, in doing its job is somehow behaving badly,” the Conservative peer said.